The Editorial
Scot Rhoads
Return of the Battle of the Sexes
A friend drew my attention to my little notice on
the inside cover of our magazine. He hinted (in no
uncertain terms) that some could find it offensive. I have since
rewritten it for this issue. When I wrote that before (after
our little brouhaha over masculine forms of general pronouns),
I intended it to eliminate problems. In case it has
the opposite effect, I figured I'd bring it up in the
editorial again. (Does anyone read this?)
I shan't go into another two pages explaining
my position and feelings in agonizing detail (agony fans
can read vol. 2, no. 2). I always disliked the masculine
as general case; but I also value smooth, readable prose.
My present editorial policy strives for non-sexist language
where ever it can fit. I despise kluges (like `he/she') and
hermaphroditic chimeras (like `s/he') and strange inventions (like
co"); but I will use the plural in place of the singular
(like `they') even though it hurts a little. At this point, though, if
I can't fix" an author's masculine pronoun and still
have something easily readable, I leave it alone. (I also
leave feminine pronouns, since that seems politically safe so far.)
I parade this before our readers again to offer you
the opportunity to control me. (Landru! Guide us!")
Obviously, I edit this magazine to please myself (obvious if
you see my paycheck, anyway); but most of that
pleasure comes from helping to create something people want
to read—so you readers have a vital role, too. I hope that
you will communicate with me the fast and easy way
(letters) rather than the slow and painful way (not buying).
Read the funky little notes on the inside cover, and please
let me know if you feel that we should make changes.
The present policy resulted from the letters I received
before. If you'd like to see more change, you need only ask
(in sufficient numbers, of course, but surprisingly few
can suffice).
Mars Needs Women
Another friend observed that we don't have
enough women writers. I can't bring myself to feel guilty
about this, since I haven't turned any away. At this point,
an author's sex does not enter into the equation. I print
the best of what I get. Women are under-represented in
this magazine because I don't get as many articles from
women. I would dearly love to get more. If you want to see
a change here, I invite you to help bring it about by
supplying us with articles by women.
?Journal of Oil and Water
Yet another editorial thingy to present in this
issue is the question of mixing magick and Wicca within
the covers of a single magazine (threat or menace?).
When we started this publication, it hadn't even occurred to
us that others might consider this an unusual thing to
do. We feel that they belong together. I'd like to
hear reactions from our readers. (Yeah, you!)
Metaphysics-Prime
A while ago, I heard an interview on National
Public Radio (sorry, I can't remember what program) with
a proponent of a version of our language called
English-Prime" (or E'). Like George Orwell's Newspeak," E'
eliminates words from English, but fortunately the similarity
ends there. E' lacks a form of `be' (am, are, is?). This
eliminates only a few words, but creates a dramatic change.<F1P12B^>
With E', one can no longer use the passive
voice. That turned me on, since the passive voice should always
be avoided." This means you can't use weasel
words," which obscure responsibility. (For example: Certain
programs will be cut due to an unforseen shortfall, as the
tax base was overestimated.") And you can't use god
language," which implies the validity of natural law
behind mere opinion. (For example: It is bad to vote against
Pat Robertson.")
It may do a few more cool things, but I didn't record the interview, so all
I have to offer is this cheap summary. To those
who wonder if E' would result in bizarre speech, note that
I have used E' throughout this editorial (outside of
the quotes—unless I blew it). The interviewee mentioned
that on the rare occasions that someone noticed his
speech, they complimented him on speaking unusually clearly.
Of course, politicians, bureaucrats and scientists would
go crazy trying to speak E', but I think that shows its
advantages.
Since I heard the interview, I wanted to write
about E' (and this Editorial with the editorial theme seems
like just the place) because I noticed that E' has
some metaphysical application. I propose
Metaphysics-Prime" (M'). Not only would it eliminate be," but the
arbitrary absolutes as well (good/bad, right/wrong,
inalienable rights?).
I don't really advocate adopting M' (I don't feel
that strongly even about E'), but I do feel that it would
benefit us greatly to recognize the significance of what M'
eliminates: god language." That term caught my attention
in the interview and got me thinking. (stand back!)
An inherent flaw in our language (probably
stemming from a flaw in our culture, but certainly feeding it
by now) is this god language." Its very nature allows us
to imagine that the things we say or hear express some
absolute Truth. In M' you cannot say: abortion is wrong."
You can say: I oppose abortion." In the first case, you
practically say: God says, `abortion is wrong.'" In the second,
you state your position.
In M' you cannot say: Good health care is a
right." You can say: I feel we should create an effective health
care policy." Similarly, the simple but powerful
statement, That's bad," could become I think that is unwise/
self destructive/ not user-friendly/ non-fitness-maximizing/ etc."
I hope I have made the difference clear.
M' benefits us by filtering out the language that
makes us think in absolute, objective terms. We must recognize
an observer, rather than having an unspoken god passing
his judgments (that the speaker merely passes along to
you). This puts the observer (that our society struggles
to eliminate) back in the universe. With M', humans
share their individual, personal observations and
judgments from within the context their worlds. M' eliminates
the implication that all must share a single perspective
and experience, lest the unspoken god judge them Wrong
and therefore undeserving of our respect.
For some years now I have occasionally played
the game of rephrasing absolutist thoughts in M` (though
I never called it M` before). I feel that this exercise
has played a part in my breaking out of the restrictive
modes of thought our society seems stuck in. It always helps me
to shake loose some of the rust in my thinking. I hope you
find it useful, too.
Blessed Be
| 
